Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
New IMDb templates Recently, MstrControl created Template:IMDb-company and Template:IMDb-name, both of which I see as mostly useless. The first one, which is a template to link production companies to IMDb, is only used 3 times, one of which is Memory Alpha:Message templates, explaining it. We don't need a template for only two real pages. I'm sure that we can manually use external links for those instead of a template. The second one is a bit trickier. It "is used to create an inline link to an IMDb page for a movie or a TV show." There are more links for this one, but most of these links should not be external IMDb links, but Wikipedia links. If there isn't a Wikipedia page available, then either it should not have a link, or it should be a manual external link (again, because a template for such a small number would be asinine). I don't see the point in either of these two templates. Delete both. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 23:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Is it MA's policy to only include links to Wiki pages? If not, why should we not link to an IMDb page if there's not a Wikipedia page. I agree that the Wiki links are preferrable, but I think you'll find that there are a lot of movies and TV shows that are on IMDb but not on Wikipedia (especially older ones). Why not, then, have a template for those links? It saves a bit of typing, and also, ultimately, disk storage. I vote to keep Template:IMDb-name. I agree, though, that Template:IMDb-company is unnecessary, and can be deleted. Renegade54 00:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::The IMDb-link template serves our purposes just fine. Delete both. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Delete company --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) :My question still wasn't answered, though... do we NOT want inline links to IMDb when there's no equivalent Wiki page? If not, why not? Renegade54 01:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::I don't think there's any policy that states there should not be any inline links to non-wiki pages, which means the IMDb-name template might come in handy. The main problem is all the arrows all over the place indicating a link to be external. Those are a bit annoying, at least to me. --From Andoria with Love 02:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::If IMDb-company is used too rarely, we can delete it. Originally I thought about nominating IMDb-name for immediate deletion because it duplicated IMDb-link, but then I noticed that IMDb-link has this "at the Internet Movie Database"-tail, so it can't be used within the text. That's why I changed it to a supplement for the in-text WP links. Ok, the arrows are a bit odd, but that's only relevant if there is a greater number of them, what is rarely the case. So keep it. --Memory 18:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::I think inline links to external sources should be used only sparingly, if possible avoided. How often do we really want to link to an article at the IMDb if it is about an person/film etc. that we do not want to have an own article about? Delete. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::Let's explain it this way: if you look at James Cromwell you can see it works well because you don't have to scroll down and click through IMDb to "L.A. Confidential" if you want to know something about this movie. And I doubt that L.A. Confidential is referenced in Trek, so we don't need an article. Btw: if we delete this, the inline links via blabla must be removed for the same reasons... --Memory 20:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::The Wikipedia links are different, in that they link to another Wiki. However, even those should be used at a minimum. The excessive IMDb links in an article are just annoying, at least in my opinion. By the way, the IMDb links on Cromwell (and some other pages, but not all) have been replaced with the (likely) preferred Wikipedia links, where applicable. :) --From Andoria with Love 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::And this is supposed to be a substitution for all the cases that no WP article exists ;-) --Memory 19:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::::There already is an interwiki link to titles at IMDb. If you put in Imdb:L.A. Confidential, it will bring you to a search page which contains a link at the top, here. I have trouble trying to get it to go straight to the page, because the interwiki link automatically replaces the spacing with an underscore ( _ ), which the IMDb search engine doesn't seem to understand. Anyway, I vote delete both.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::Since everyone has at least agreed to delete the company template, that has been deleted. However, the name template might have to be kept, as we have three votes to keep it (Renegade, Alan, Memory) and four votes to delete it (Platypus, Cid, Tim, myself). This I do not believe constitutes a 2/3 majority needed to delete the template. --From Andoria with Love 03:27, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::::Regarding the outcome, Alan didn't cast any vote on the remaining template. Still, let me address some of the above again: :::::When I said that, in my opinion, inline links to external sources should be used sparingly, this referred not only to non-Wikipedia links, and not only to actor pages, but to all of them. This site is about Star Trek - inline, off-site links should by definition only appear if the subject (actor, movie, item, concept) clearly has no Trek connection. In all other cases, we'd prefer an internal link. Before an external link is added, this decision has to be made. Second, is the loss of not inline-linking to completely unrelated movies and actors really that big? Someone reading MA is not necessarily interested in everything this actor did - in that case, he probably would have visited Wikipedia or IMDb instead - and in fact, he still can if we add both links in an "External links" section at the bottom of an article. Third, and this hasn't been brought up in this discussion, there even are guidelines that might apply in this case: Memory Alpha:Don't use external links where we'll want Memory Alpha links and Memory Alpha:Describe external links. -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I agree, and good catch with Alan -- you're right, he never voted on the remaining page. We'll need to remove the template from the articles before deleting it, though; I think I can handle that when I get through with my "rounds". ;) --From Andoria with Love 20:51, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::If we take an example, Elisha Cook, Jr., it is clear that it wouldn't be really logical to remove it, because nearly every other film on that page is linked with a WP-link, so why not "Terror at Alcatraz" with an IMDB-link (as long as no WP-link is possible)? --Memory 21:04, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::::As I said above, remove "not only ... non-Wikipedia links, but ... ''all of them''" from the main text. Of course it would be strange to have all but one film or series linked from a page, but still: This is a Star Trek encyclopedia. Do we need a direct link to Magnum, P.I.? Gunsmoke? Perry Mason? After all, we don't link to all possibly existing articles on Wikipedia from other articles, just because the phrase in question has no Trek relation... :::::BTW, the next off-site link in that row would be Wagon Train, which might even be a case of an external link where we'll want a Memory Alpha link. After all, wasn't Star Trek specifically called "Wagon Train to the stars" by Roddenberry? -- Cid Highwind 02:00, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::::MA might not need this, but it makes it easier for the readers to get more informations about something specific from the work of the actors without the detour via a link at the bottom. If it does no harm, why not offer such a possibility? --Memory 22:00, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::::This is becoming less of a discussion about this specific template to be deleted and more of a discussion about external links in general. We might want to move (or split) this somewhere else soon, but anyway... The question is: Do we really want to link each and every occurence of something, even if it has no relation to Trek? I feel that it threatens the idea of Memory Alpha as an independent, special-purpose encyclopedia if we start to interweave it too much with other encyclopedias and similar sites. Since I don't know why actor pages should be a special case regarding this, let's take another example: Australia, and assume that every possible internal link has already been created. Then, why don't we link externally to Wikipedia:Melbourne, Wikipedia:Sydney, Wikipedia:Jenolan, Wikipedia:Botany Bay and probably about half a dozen other pages? Answer: Because we concentrate on Trek content here. Someone reading the Australia article here either wants to read about Sydney in a Trek context (and apparently, that context doesn't exist), or is surely able to follow the link to Wikipedia:Australia at the bottom of the page, from where he can find his way to all the information about Sydney he'll ever need. -- Cid Highwind 15:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Would anybody be against me moving this discussion to Ten Forward or Template talk:IMDb-name? --From Andoria with Love 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC) T'Lak This article already exists as Talok. A google search seems to confirm that T'Lak is not a Trek name or at least a spelling even used to associate with this character, whereas the latter finds multiple confirmed results. --Alan del Beccio 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete/Merge Content' I agree that T'Lak should go, however T'Lak has a lot more information than Talak. If you're going to get rid of T'Lak, at least bring some of the information from it over to Talak. *'Merge' into Talok and delete this. --Starchild |<''Talk''> 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC) * Merge/'delete'. --From Andoria with Love 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC) The Infobox Text / Template:Infobox Film / SFM ;The Infobox Text & Template:Infobox Film : Created by an anonymous contributor who, I think, isn't yet completely aware of the wiki functionality (already gave him a welcome message). The template seems to be copied from Wikipedia, the other page had a wrong call of that template plus some other strange links. I guess both could be delete as "user tests". -- Cid Highwind 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC) * Delete both. ;SFM: Another one from the same constributor mentioned above. --From Andoria with Love 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC) * I deleted this one, it was clearly spam. --Alan del Beccio 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) * SFM is still around and kicking. Delete it, says I. — THOR ''=/\='' 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Star Trek: Expanded Universe *Star Trek: Expanded Universe - promotion of an external website, MA:NOT a web directory. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' Jaz 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Non-Trek Related TV Articles : CBS, Paramount Domestic Television, CBS Paramount Television, Paramount Network Television, DreamWorks, : January 27, 2006 - SFM * Articles with no relation to Trek, CBS had mainly biased information but has been removed. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) :Comment: Added Dreamworks - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' CBS but Delete the others. Vash The Stampede 05:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' - No relation to 'trek?. MatthewFenton 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC) * Delete -- however, since we have NBC and UPN, I might lean towards keeping CBS. CBS was the station that aired the first run of TNG (at least in my local viewing area). At times it even ran against first run DS9 on NBC on the same time slot. For that matter, some areas that did not have a local UPN station ran the shows on FOX. Back during VOY's first run it aired on my local FOX station (and later ran ENT), and after I moved to the Grand Rapids (and before the local UPN station was established there) it appeared on oddball stations like PAX and FOX. Somehow I wouldn't doubt this arrangement was unique to Northern and Western Michigan and perhaps with some further support or confirmation, it might be worth noting these as valid broadcast stations, much like we have validated Spike TV for airing the re-runs of these series. My local FOX re-ran DS9 for several years while I was in college. --Alan del Beccio 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' CBS and DreamWorks, as there is no Trek relevance there. Keep CBS Paramount Television and merge Paramount Domestic Television and Paramount Network Television into that article, as CBS Paramount Television is the new Trek license holder (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15216.html http://www.trektoday.com/news/190106_01.shtml) and the latter two articles are relevant to its history. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC) **On second thought, Paramount Domestic Television and Paramount Network Television could probably be merged and redirected to Paramount Television and that article cleaned up to remove non-Trek relevant content per its talk page. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *CBS currently owns Paramount (Paramount Television is now called CBS Paramount Television). So, keep CBS and CBS Paramount Television, delete or merge the rest. --From Andoria with Love 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' CBS and CBS Paramount Television, merge and redirect Paramount Domestic Television and Paramount Network to Paramount Television, and delete DreamWorks. --Starchild |<''Talk''> 02:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) * Merge these articles into a single or smaller group of articles that describes the various companies evolutions.. i'm at a loss of a good "top-level" descriptor, but maybe "Paramount" would be it.. **BTW, no network "aired" first run TNG or DS9 -- they were syndicated. In my area they ran on a FOX station, but they weren't FOX shows -- they could be run by any network that decided to buy the shows on a week to week basis, apparently it was NBC or CBS in Alan's area, but more often they were picked up by "independant" stations (with no network) -- so creating an article about CBS just because one or two CBS stations ran a first run TNG episode doesn't seem necessary. The only networks that have, to date, aired first-run Trek are UPN and NBC. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) *'Comment' I found a link between CBS and trek: Gene Roddenberry first offered The Cage to CBS, but got declined. I know that its a small link, but it should be mentioned somewhere that CBS was part of Trek history. * New Addition - I have added SFM to the list, another unrelated TV article created by Logoboy. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC) :*SFM was previously deleted and therefore qualified as an immediate deletion. --From Andoria with Love 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC) *Again, I believe we should keep CBS Paramount Television, as they now hold the rights to new Star Trek series (maybe even merge Paramount Television with it). As for CBS, I suggest keeping that as a redirect to CBS Paramount Television. Delete Paramount Domestic Television and Paramount Network Television since both of those are the same as Paramount Television (now CBS Paramount Television) and I doubt anyone will do a search for "Paramount Domestic" or "Paramount Television", so there's no need to keep them as redirects. Lastly, definitely delete DreamWorks since Paramount only owns a portion of that company and no Trek has ever been produced or distributed under that company. --From Andoria with Love 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) These seem familar... ;Kesparn, Phasion Beam, A Matter of Anti-Time ...as they from an IP in the 67.x.xx.xxx range (similar to our vandal from last fall) with contributions like this that are not pulling in google results. --Alan del Beccio 07:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC) : To my knowledge VOY: A Matter of Anti-Time and DS9: A Matter of Q are not novels, as they are certainly not episodes. --Alan del Beccio 07:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) To my knowledge, these seem to be legitimate. -Vala 07:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) *And to my knowledge, you seem to be... well, no personal attacks right? Anyway speedy delete all. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not going to say you people are stupid, but I still don't like what you've done. What with the threat of Ori attack and everything, you're worrying about articles which may or may not be true. You sicken me. -Vala 08:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC) *Riiiight... anyway, going back to reality: delete them all, quick, fast, and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC) * How ... odd. Delete them all. — THOR ''=/\='' 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC) * How odd, indeed. Delete - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' - Probably fandom?--MatthewFenton 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC) * worrying about articles which may or may not be true. You sicken me. -- Our charter here is to only include those articles which are true. If you are sickened by following our , then you should consult a doctor and discontinue use. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' No reason to be here Vash The Stampede 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC) ** Deleted, i think we have a concensus. --Alan del Beccio 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Klingon Assault Group (moved from MA:Pfid) *This page is basically information and advertisement for an RPG group, currently not allowed by MA standards. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC) **Definately Speedy Delete. This is an advertisement. --Galaxy001 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC) **It is an advertisement for the RPG, however it doesn't seem to qualify as a speedy delete and I believe should probably be brought up on the VfD page.--Tim Thomason 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC) **This is actually one of several ideas I've had in mind for some time but never got the chance to bring to people's attention. Creating articles on fan clubs such as this would be a great way to stay true to our mandate of "everything related to Star Trek", but if no one else is interested in the idea, we might as well be done with it. Either way, yeah, VfD. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Plot type articles ;Episodes that feature a character/series crossover: ;Episodes that feature a disease as a plot element: ;Episodes that feature a shuttle crash ;Episodes that feature a supernatural/omnipotent being or powers * To start off with, we already voted to delete similar pages last September, look here. Aside from that, the names are all wrong. They are all , with no links going in or coming out (except the coinciding Reference tables addition). In fact, they are essentially blank, with the exception of the subsection headlines. As it currently stands, and as we've decided once before, they have no place here.--Alan del Beccio 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) * Delete all. --From Andoria with Love 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) **I kind of liked the idea, but precedent has been set, so delete all of them. Jaz 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Mister We are not a dictionary, and this page (orphaned, by the way) could hypothetically refer to every male ever mentioned. Jaz 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, I would have to agree. Not to mention, if we were to identiy every character who has been referred to as "mister", we'd have... a lot. :P Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) This is not a dictionary-type entry. It was written as a definitive list of Starfleet officers who are verbally addressed as 'Mister' by another officer. This doesn't happen as often as the above comments would suggest, certainly not "every male ever mentioned." The use of the word Mister is unique when applied to Lieutenant Saavik in ST2:TWOK. In that film, its use by both Kirk and Spock is clearly intended as a respectful title, albeit somewhat informal. TheBluesMan 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC) :: Noted, but mister is just a part of speach. It would be like if we made a page for "red", and added everything red that has ever been mentioned or seen in star trek. I appreciate the work your starting to do here at MA BluesMan, but I think this page needs to go. Jaz 05:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) ::: It is not a simple part of speech the way that Spock and Kirk use it in TWOK. It is more like a title. Why didn't they simply call her Lieutenant? or Saavik? Because it is an informal title. TheBluesMan 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) :Actually, I kinda like CaptainMike's suggestion to place some of the info on the rank page. For that discussion, see the article's talk page. --From Andoria with Love 05:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) :: That would be fine with me. I enjoy contributing to MA and would like for some of my work to not be wasted. Thanks! TheBluesMan 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) :::One final point I'd like to make - Characters like Whalen and Leslie don't have any recorded rank in Canon. They are simply called Mister. It is my assertion that the term is an informal title. Thanks for considering my contribution. TheBluesMan 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) :::: Actually Leslie has a recorded rank in canon. Not that that is the issue here, but Mr. really isn't a title in terms we can apply here, when you consider that Dr. or Prof. can be actually mean something, like one who practices medicine or one who teaches or in both cases one who conducts research. A Mister does nothing. It's a term to describe someone in a formal or professional atmosphere, nothing more. All Doctors are Misters, but not all Misters are Doctors. I'm inclined to agree with Mikes idea. --Alan del Beccio 06:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Episode ;Episode: I'm not sure I see the point or value of this orphaned article. Clearly it is a meta-'' article, but Memory Alpha is not a dictionary, so why are defining a ''meta-'' term here as if we were one? --Alan del Beccio 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) *'delete', but I would like to see an alphabetical list of all Episodes. I'll get on that if there are no objections. Jaz 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) *'keep''' - the non-canon star trek wiki has an article on episodes, but this site doesn't! I don't see why not, as episodes are, after all, usually regarded as canon. --Defiant Administrator | ''Talk'' 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) *Alan is right - MA is not a dictionary, which means that this article shouldn't be kept in its current form. However, we don't necessarily need to delete in this case: a redirect to a (yet to be written) article Episodes, whether that's a complete alphabetical list as suggested above or simply a short article linking to the various episode categories might be the best solution. -- Cid Highwind 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) *Although I was under the impression that article names should be singular, I support the suggested solution. --Defiant Administrator | ''Talk'' 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) **They should - unless they are "list articles". Titles of those were abbreviated from the previous "List of Xs" to just "Xs". :) -- Cid Highwind 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Delete. I agree with Jaz. --Galaxy001 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Hertzsprung-Russell diagram ;Hertzsprung-Russell diagram: Going along with the whole, "we're not Wikipedia" philosophy, I'm not seeing how this is relevant to "the project." Spectral classes were hardly (if ever) referenced in Star Trek and this appears to be part of an early project to define things with real world information that were never mentioned on screen. Along with this, of course, would be the corresponding Image:Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram.jpg. --Alan del Beccio 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) :Agreed with both deletions. I think this is a very early article from a time where our policies and guidelines weren't as exact as they are now. It just doesn't fit with the rest anymore, and the Spectral class article seems to be enough. We should perhaps move the link to Wikipedia's HRD article to the Spectral class page, though. -- Cid Highwind 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Phaser type-12, Phaser type-10, Phaser type-9, Phaser type-5 ;Phaser type-12, Phaser type-10, Phaser type-9, Phaser type-5 *Non-canon, they come from Star Trek: Starship Spotter, and although I am not completely opposed to have the information from the ST:SS on the starship class pages (as long as the source is clearly noted) I dont think it should be linked internally, OR if so, they should be redirected to phaser or phaser emitter. --Alan del Beccio 03:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC) *'deletion': types 9-12 would be classified as "phaser arrays" i believe, but Alan is correct -- if it wasn't mentioned on screen, there's no need to create a separate article. I still think that the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual originated reference phaser type-10 may be found in an onscreen mention, because Okuda and Sternbach named the type-X arrays on the 1701-D -- so there is probably a computer display readout or some other piece of canonical set information about this -- the rest however, were devised by non-canon book writers after Sternbach and Okuda finished contributing regularly to technical illustrations, and shouldn't be taken as valid based on the books alone. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) * Re-direct, or Merge, it is non-canon, so belongs in Phaser background section. The King of Kings' Soldier 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) *Normally I would be inclined to reccomend deletion, but since the names are very commonly used in fan-cirlces and on the web, I think we should make them redirects. Jaz *** 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' as background on phaser and redirect ~Starchild |<''Talk''> 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC) box template components ;Template:End; Template:End box; Template:S-start/Instructions; Template:S-start; Template:Start box; Template:S-inc; Template:Qif; Template:S-ttl; Template:S-bef; Template:Incumbent succession box: * Essentially an unnecessary and extemely complicated way to make that we have more or less fulfilled with are much simplier style such as found in Template:Federation presidents. --Alan del Beccio 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', quick! Copied from Wikipedia, apparently, and seeing the controversial discussions about QIF and the like there, I never want to see that here again... ;) -- Cid Highwind 09:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Warp drive (Star Trek) ;Warp drive (Star Trek): We agreed not to keep these a couple weeks ago with our votes against The Dauphin (TNG episode). I changed the wikipedia link to link to our Warp drive page directly. --Alan del Beccio 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Jaz *** 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) *Yeah, it's an improper redirect, so I believe it to be an an immediate delete... and deleted it. As I said then, we are not here to cater to the needs of Wikipedia; a correction of the link at Wikipedia is all that needs to be done. There's no need for a useless redirect. --From Andoria with Love 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC) **I agree with this being an immediate deletion candidate in the future - however, I think we should always edit the relevant links on Wikipedia in these cases. We don't win anything if Wikipedia links to a Memory Alpha page that doesn't exist. -- Cid Highwind 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Enterprise: The First Adventure This should be included in the non-canon wiki. Also, the article seems to be lacking information. Is this book Canon, Fanon, or None of the Above (ergo, deletable)? Hopquick 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)